I’ve heard before that the Green Party has tried court to take care of the problem the Network TV big-wigs make when they exclude new parties from the televised debates. I wondered if it is illegal, what the broadcasters are doing by choosing which registered parties get to debate on free national TV. May’s right that many Canadians will again be enraged by the CRTC allowing broadcasters to block a party with ~12% national support in recent polling. Greens shouldn’t have to threaten to sue, or beg, to be in the leader’s debate.
Stations like CBC I know in the past have for Saskatchewan elections given each party unpaid broadcast time around the supper time news. But are the TV and radio stations breaking the law by allowing the Bloc, NDP, Cons., and Libs. to debate on air, while arbitrarily deciding that the Greens, PCs and other registered parties aren’t eligible?
Maybe someone can decipher the following in the Elections Act, and decide if the Greens, CAP, PCs etc have a case in law to make, even if common sense doesn’t lead the media moguls to improve our democracy by televising as many registered parties as want to debate.
* failure to make broadcasting time available (wilfully) – broadcaster – subsection 335(1) or, network operator – subsection 335(2)
(f)
500(4) $25,000 fine
* failure to make additional broadcasting time available – broadcaster (wilfully) – subsection 339(3)
(g)
500(4)
$25,000 fine
* failure to adjust broadcasting time (wilfully) – subsection 339(4)
(g)
500(4)
$25,000 fine
* failure to make free broadcasting time available – network operator (wilfully) – subsection 345(1)
(g)
500(4)
$25,000 fine
* failure to charge lowest rate for broadcasting time or advertising space (wilfully) – section 348
(h)
500(4)
$25,000 fine
* fails to comply with an allocation of or entitlement to broadcasting time under this Act – broadcaster or network operator
(i)
500(4)
$25,000 fine
* makes available to a registered party or eligible party within the period described in subsection 335(1) more broadcasting time than is required to be made – broadcaster or network operator – under sections 337 and 338 or entitlement under section 339, without making available to each other registered party or eligible party an amount of additional equivalent broadcasting time
(j)
500(4)
$25,000 fine
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
America Jones | 01-Mar-07 at 8:27 am | Permalink
We have the same situation in the United States. It’s a sickness.
JimBobby | 01-Mar-07 at 9:57 am | Permalink
Whooee! Sasky, this whole Broadcast Consortium nonsense is gettin’ my blood pressure up inta the danger zone. The Greenies got more popular support than the rotten separatist BlocHeads but the bigass network fatcats’ll let the CheeseHat up on his hind legs while they stand in the way of Earth Mother Lizzie May (the gal I adore). The Greens run candidates in every dang ridin’ an’ the BlocHeads is only in Q-beck but TROC has t’ watch A Boy Named Jill on the TV.
These here TV debates amount t’ $1000’s worth o’ free advertisin’ fer the debaters.
I said it before an’ I’m sayin’ it again — if the other candidates want Lizzie May in the debates, all they gotta do is threaten t’ boycott. Even if one of ‘em threatened, it’d be enuff t’ make them CBC, CTV, Global money-grubbers change their tune.
Dion’s on record fer allowin’ the GPC in. Harpoon’d be smart t’ want Lizzie in since she’s gonna grab more votes from the Grits than from the Cons. Happy Jack is scared shitless o’ Lizzie May. Watch the New Democrat show how democratic he is when he either tries to keep the GPC out or has no comment.
JB
Green Assassin Brigade | 01-Mar-07 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
This is obviously a case of Greenism, we should take it to a human rights tribunal, the world court or Judge Judy.
The networks don’t care because we don’t have the budget to buy advertising space therefore we are irrelevant to their bottom line.
Why does no one stand up with a house motion demanding fixed sound rules for debate entry? Greenism!
The london by election shows we can capture votes from the whole spectrum, once ridings become a 4 way race it only takes 25%+ to get a seat that scares them all and slimey Jack the most.
Manuel | 01-Mar-07 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
If it’s a CBC debate then yes the greens should be in, if it’s a say global or CTV debate they can invite whichever political groups they wish, although personally the bloc shouldn’t have a place at any debate since it’s a federal debate, which should involve parties who have candidates across the whole country.
Saskboy | 01-Mar-07 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
“If it’s a CBC debate then yes the greens should be in, if it’s a say global or CTV debate they can invite whichever political groups they wish”
Manuel, the law would suggest that’s not the case. A broadcaster is a broadcaster, and they aren’t paid by the participating parties to feature certain ones in the televised debate we all see. They are free to interview and feature news about whoever they like, but if they provide ordinarily paid broadcast time to one party and not another, they are liable to be fined, and are clearly acting in an anti-democratic way.
rob enderle | 01-Mar-07 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
JimBobby, go back to the slug farm.
Your whole BLoc/Green analogy is idiotic and badly thought out.
As long as this country is still a country (and trust me with blockheads like you all across the country, I have to agree with Francophones that this is not their country, only a part of it is), it does not matter where the concentration of vote comes from: they played by the rules so STFU.
I was in Borden the night that Peter Mckay shook hands in front of national TV and then lied a month later and shut down the PC party. That was actually the eye opener in my life to what politics is all about although going to school in Toronto and grad school now Montreal probably had more to do with it. Polticians are in majority lawyersa and business people, so finding little loopholes is what they are about. It might be irritating but there is NOTHING you can do. You can play the game, follow the rules and keep quiet.
The Greens had the same thing done in Quebec where only the top three parties were picked but they are far behind the 4th party who has a bigger case.
Sorry sasky, I tried insulting you like you asked in /. but really had nothing bad to say about you as opposed to the Delivrance relative above.
eeid | 01-Mar-07 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
Excluding the Greens is acceptable since their status is similar to the Family Coalition Party and the Marijuana Party. The Marijuana Party has actually won a case in Court over election funding. If the Marijuana Party gets public funding than it should also be included as well.
Saskboy | 01-Mar-07 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
Rob, check out the poll on martinbreton.com and it puts the Greens [provincial] in Quebec in 4th not 5th place. Sorry you couldn’t find anything bad to write about me.
“it does not matter where the concentration of vote comes from: they played by the rules so STFU.”
I don’t really understand what you mean when you say that. What rules? The rules for the leaders debate are not defined in law, besides the statutes I’ve posted here [among others perhaps]. The broadcaster’s rules are ever changing goalposts, and the Bloc doesn’t have to play by them.
==
“If the Marijuana Party gets public funding than it should also be included as well.”
So it should then, I can live with that. It’s not up to the broadcasters to determine who, and who can’t, have unpaid debate time on public airwaves.
JimBobby | 01-Mar-07 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
Whooee! Rob sez -”Your whole BLoc/Green analogy is idiotic and badly thought out.”
Okay, Rob, tell me why a party that runs candidates in 70-odd ridings and in only one province should trump a party that runs in every riding across the whole country. The BQ is polling behind the GPC in public opinion polls, btw.
The rules of the game are not rules set out by Elections Canada but by a group of network executives. They are not acting in the public interest but in the interest of their employers, the big TV networks. These executives may have their own partisan axes to grind, as well. Global’s rep for the 2000 Broadcast Consortium was newsman Peter Kent. In 2004, Kent ran for the CPoC.
Democracy can’t be left in the hands of a half dozen TV executives. Elections Canada should take over the TV debates, sez I.
When voters in TROC cannot possibly vote for a BQ candidate, why should the BQ leader be allowed to take up time and space? Is it merely to prove how inclusivewe are? But who’s allowing it? Not the public but rather a group of TV network executives.
Why not have a separate debate for the nation-within-a-nation where Gilles can participate? I ain’t got nuthin’ against Q-beckers. I like it that we got a distinct society here in Canada. I hate the idea o’ bustin’ up this great an’ wonderful country an’ that’s what the rotten separatist BlocHeads wanna do.
An’ RobFeller, that thing about the “slug farm” is what I call an ad homenim attack. It does nothin’ t’ further yer argument an’ it make you look sorta weak an’ small. Try stickin’ with the issue an’ leavin’ off with personal stuff.
Eeid, the GPC got 4.6% of the popular vote in 2006. The parties yer tryin’ t’ compare to the Greens didn’t get 1% between the 2 of ‘em. To try to equate microparties with a party that has the support of more than 10% of Canajuns is disingenuous an’ I bet you know it.
JB
Saskboy | 01-Mar-07 at 4:25 pm | Permalink
CBC’s bias showing:
“In an average of the last three weekly polls, the Conservatives have 33 per cent, the Liberals 30 per cent, the NDP 14 per cent, the Bloc nine per cent and the Greens 11 per cent.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/01/poll-tories.html
I guess ordering the parties by polling numbers isn’t the thing to do in an article about polls.
JimBobby | 02-Mar-07 at 7:52 am | Permalink
“I guess ordering the parties by polling numbers isn’t the thing to do in an article about polls.”
Right you are, Sasky. The Greens is always an afterthought fer the MSM — if they think of ‘em at all.
The GPC is polling at 13% (same as NDP). In my alphabet, G comes before N but Decima shows the parties stacked up with Green att he bottom. More bias, sez I.
JB